Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[Niatero]

I really am curious about whether anyone here has ever critically examined historical methods, and more specifically, the ones that have been customized for writing about Jesus; and if anyone has seen what historians themselves say about the limitations and applications of historical methods, when they are writing honestly and responsibly, not selling books and talks saying what one faction or another wants to hear. If anyone has, please tell me. I’m especially interested in what you think about this topic.

 

[Augustus]

I really am curious about whether anyone here has ever critically examined historical methods, and more specifically, the ones that have been customized for writing about Jesus; and if anyone has seen what historians themselves say about the limitations and applications of historical methods, when they are writing honestly and responsibly, not selling books and talks saying what one faction or another wants to hear. If anyone has, please tell me. I’m especially interested in what you think about this topic.

They are the same methods used in all other areas of ancient historical enquiry.

They haven’t been customised for Jesus, and they share the same limitations that impact the study of ancient history.

All scholars are aware that, on any topic, there are limited sources from this era, that ancient history was rarely written to be an objective and accurate description of factual events and can’t be taken at face value, that sources often significantly post-date events, that texts may contain scribal errors or interpolations, etc.

 

[Rival]

I really am curious about whether anyone here has ever critically examined historical methods, and more specifically, the ones that have been customized for writing about Jesus; and if anyone has seen what historians themselves say about the limitations and applications of historical methods, when they are writing honestly and responsibly, not selling books and talks saying what one faction or another wants to hear. If anyone has, please tell me. I’m especially interested in what you think about this topic.

Yes, this is a whole field of study that has been going on since the 18thc. It really took off in the early 20thc. with people like Schweitzer and Bultmann, born in 1875 and 1884.

We talk about the First, Second, and Third Quests, if anyone hasn't brought that up already.

There is a whole group of folks doing this from this period on, correcting, rebutting and following each other.

We studied this in our second year of uni, it's not a woo-woo field and I don't know why some people would think it is.

You'd need to read from all of these guys and you'll get the point they're making in depth, it's not something people in an internet forum can really cover.

Albert Schweitzer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rudolf Bultmann - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sargonski]

A lot of this is probably true. Mark did use the Elisha story updated for Jesus. I don't know if we have any evidence of Jesus as a man. There is evidence he was a pre-existent celestial being. The first mention was Paul where he was already in spirit form but Philo mentioned a similar ac-angel who fits the description and is called The Branch.

The idea is that Matthew added the guard so people wouldn't say the body was stolen, to lean on the resurrection thing.
That was the point of sons/daughters of God, to go through some passion and get salvation for followers.



"Romulus, like Jesus, was a mythical person historicized who was claimed to be a pre-existent celestial being who became incarnate, died, and returned to life to rule on high. Scholars are coming to agree now that this indeed influenced the development of Christianity. Time to get on board."

"“Paul’s letters show the belief,” Hurtado writes, that Jesus “had been ‘pre-existent’ and was the agent through whom all things were created (e.g., 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 [and Philippians 2:5-11]),” and indeed this means “the idea was already known and uncontroversial in early Christian circles within the first few years after Jesus’ crucifixion.” And these scholars all document the existence of angelic or other celestial creatures who already existed in Jewish theology that Jesus was believed to have been. This is no longer controversial. Take note."

Chrissy Hansen on the Pre-Existent Jesus • Richard Carrier Blogs

It’s the growing consensus in Jesus studies now that the first Christians believed Jesus was the incarnation of a pre-existent celestial being. Even Bart Ehrman has gotten aboard this trend (see Bart Ehrman on How Jesus Became God); and even Larry Hurtado, who was irrationally against...

www.richardcarrier.info

Interesting spin on pre-existence (reincarnated celestial being) and almost certainly a position held by gnostic Christians -- a pre-existence position very different than the one proposed in John 1 - and more like the Buddhist tradition .. which some have suggested of Jesus. Somewhat interesting that Paul had such idea but I put Paul at the very low end of the totem pole in terms of evidence of Jesus .. we would expect someone who has had vision as Paul is suggested to have had to believe in pre-existence in some form .. whether or not this was teaching of Jesus is a completely different question.

Strange you say no evidence Jesus was a man .. coming from one well read .. wondering if I am misinterpreting something .. as on of the great debates in the early Church was the nature of Christs divinity and humanity .. and the whole spectrum in between - talking about what the people at that time believed about Jesus.

Let us dispense with the furthest away from the source and look at the original story .. as opposed to the numerous edited and revised versions .. and Pauline scripture having nothing to add .. the text not knowing anything about Jesus directly .. such as is proposed by the Sermon on the Mount in Matt for example. These give as the throughts of Jesus .. Jesus is the speaking voice .. not the througts of Paul.

This wipes out everything but Mark and Matt --- Matt using everything in mark sans a few passages derogatory to Jesus and/or disciples -- and he adds a few things .. likely from another source Q .. but for now let us stick with Mark --- the first written story of Jesus that we know of .. what did someone in 65 AD think Jesus is .. Man - Human - half and half - divine spark .. Angel ... YES these are things that later christians believed .. but what does the fellow in 65 AD think .. a Jew having heard of Jesus --- or Roman -- reading the original story ?

They all recognize the standard adoption motif .. to a person .. the oldest story of the thousands upon thousands of books of stories .. and oral tradition exposition. In the midst of this grand myth cacophony .. This is the oldest and most well known story .. hands down .. every Jew living at the time realizing that Moses is based on this motif .. Man -(after a rough start in the case of Moses, Sargon - being floated down river in reed basket) - is adopted by God -- who then goes on to lead a Nation. Sargon is the first and oldest story a real King who united the city States of Mesopotamia into the worlds first empire .. ~2350 BC.

We have other adoption stories in the bible ... Abraham for example .. this however does not come with a prophetic abillity .. like the prophets who we could also say were adopted .. none having as cool a ritual as Jesus "that we know of" .. .. and this doesn't include all the adoption stories from a gazillion other myths that the reader is going to be aware.

The reader believes Jesus is a man - age 30 - who comes from humble beginning (remember there is no virgin birth in mark) - and this Man is adopted-chosen by God .. the text uses the term annointed one of God - Messiah.. This is a man being depicted .. who is annointed by God .. receives some kind of divine spark (a sliver of the all-spark is as best I can put it) is able to speak God's word through "The Spirit of the Lord" .. I use this phrase because this dude was around in the OT ... and this spirit is invoked .. present at the baptism. Every Jew is going to be familiar with this spirit .. the Roman .. some other divine spirit .

This Human then must go through the ritual testing prior to being actualized .. something that would be ridiculous for a God to go through .. already being divine and that divinity actualized .. don't have to go through a ritual trial ... such a trial mirrors the king making ritual of the Egyptian Pharaoh .. a ritual that was dangerous .. after which the Pharaoh was part God or .. a kind of living God .. The point being is that the reader recognizes the ritual trial .. and that this is something a man goes through prior to his God spark being actualized.

 

[Niatero]

Maybe I need to ask only one question at a time, and make them more precise. Has anyone here ever critically examined the guidelines that historians allegedly use to decide what documents to use and how, to write their stories?

(later) Again, that question was not rhetorical. I really would like to know if anyone here has ever critically examined any of the guidelines that historians allegedly use to decide what documents to use and how, to write their stories.

 

[Augustus]

Has anyone here ever critically examined the guidelines that historians allegedly use to decide what to use and what not to use, and how, in historical documents?

There are not really a neat set of guidelines that can be summed up in a forum post.

Historiography is often complex and involves many different disciplines that are contingent on the topic in question.

Different scholars will favour different approaches too. There is no consensus as to the “correct” way to establish historicity.

 

[Truthseeker]

For a historian, Jesus is entirely uninteresting. The guy didn't write anything, didn't invent anything, had no political power, isn't mentioned in any contemporaneous document. The best evidence for any Christ having existed are Christians. But for their existence, it is not important if the Christ character is invented or based on a real person. And Christianity didn't Ubecome interesting before Theodosius made it the Roman state religion in 380 AD.

Uninteresting when European history is so involved with who He actually was if a person has any curiosity about what He taught and what possible misconceptions may exist that helped shape that history?

 

[Colt]

Yeah, I mean like taking for granted that superatural/divine things do not occur. That is not the place of the historian, to purport to document supernatural occurences. If the theologian wants to come in and talk about that stuff, FINE. But if we're talking about the historical jesus, we are adopting the historian's pespective and the methodology of history, and that includes methodological naturalism.

And the upshot is that the scholarship has converged on the view that there very probably was a historical Jesus of Nazareth, and that he actually led a small, short, and ill-fated mission that ended with his death at the hands of the Romans for the charge of treason (i.e. claiming to be the messiah, i.e. the KIng of Israel- dangerous to crown yourself king when you are under military occupation by another empire).

Yes, he existed and is still in existence in heaven. IMOP

 

[Truthseeker]

History of religion can include beliefs of people but supernatural events themselves are not considered history.

Ehrman in a debate with Craig:

What about the resurrection of Jesus? I’m not saying it didn’t happen; but if it did happen, it would be a miracle. The resurrection claims are claims that not only that Jesus’ body came back alive; it came back alive never to die again. That’s a violation of what naturally happens, every day, time after time, millions of times a year. What are the chances of that happening? Well, it’d be a miracle. In other words, it’d be so highly improbable that we can’t account for it by natural means. A theologian may claim that it’s true, and to argue with the theologian we’d have to argue on theological grounds because there are no historical grounds to argue on. Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition a miracle is the least probable occurrence. And so, by the very nature of the canons of historical research, we can’t claim historically that a miracle probably happened. By definition, it probably didn’t. And history can only establish what probably did.​

​

I wish we could establish miracles, but we can’t. It’s no one’s fault. It’s simply that the canons of historical research do not allow for the possibility of establishing as probable the least probable of all occurrences. For that reason, Bill’s four pieces of evidence are completely irrelevant. There cannot be historical probability for an event that defies probability, even if the event did happen. The resurrection has to be taken on faith, not on the basis of proof.​

​

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

William Lane Craig vs. Bart D. Ehrman

www.reasonablefaith.org

Yes we don't know what happened concerning the "resurrection".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes we don't know what happened concerning the "resurrection".

We do know, however, that there exists a fallacy termed argument from ignorance.

 

[Niatero]

What “special rules” do you think historians apply to the historical Jesus that they don’t apply to other areas of history though?

When writing stories about Jesus, historians and scholars often apply specialized guidelines or criteria that may not be commonly used in other fields of historical study. These guidelines are tailored to the unique nature of the subject matter and the challenges posed by the historical sources available. Here are some widely used guidelines specific to the study of Jesus:

1. Criteria of Authenticity: Historians of Jesus often employ criteria of authenticity to assess the reliability of historical information about him. These criteria include:
   • Multiple Attestation: Historical details that appear in multiple independent sources are considered more likely to be authentic.
   • Dissimilarity: Sayings or actions attributed to Jesus that are dissimilar to Jewish or early Christian beliefs and practices are considered more likely to be authentic.
   • Embarrassment: Details that would have been embarrassing or difficult for early Christians to accept or explain are considered more likely to be authentic.
   • Coherence: Details that fit coherently with what is known about the historical context and Jesus' life and teachings are considered more likely to be authentic.
2. Criteria for Gospel Reliability: Scholars often assess the reliability of the Gospels— the primary sources for information about Jesus— using criteria such as:
   • Literary Genre: Understanding the genre and purpose of each Gospel (e.g., biography, theological treatise) helps determine how historical information is presented.
   • Redaction Criticism: Analysis of the editing or redactional changes made by the Gospel authors helps identify their theological perspectives and biases.
   • Aramaic Substratum: Scholars sometimes attempt to identify underlying Aramaic sources or traditions behind the Greek texts of the Gospels.
3. Jesus Seminar's Criteria: The Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars who sought to determine the authenticity of Jesus' sayings, developed additional criteria including:
   • Historical Plausibility: Sayings or actions attributed to Jesus that are consistent with the cultural, social, and historical context of first-century Palestine are considered more plausible.
   • Semitic Influence: Sayings that show evidence of Aramaic or Semitic influence are considered more likely to be authentic.
4. Social Scientific Approaches: Some scholars employ social scientific methods to analyze Jesus' teachings and actions within the context of first-century Judaism and the broader Mediterranean world. This includes consideration of socio-economic factors, kinship structures, and cultural norms.
5. Textual and Source Criticism: Historical Jesus scholars engage in textual and source criticism to evaluate the reliability and authenticity of the Gospel texts and other early Christian sources, such as the letters of Paul.

These guidelines and criteria reflect the unique challenges of studying the historical Jesus and are tailored to the nature of the available sources and the theological implications of the subject matter. While some principles may overlap with broader historical methodologies, others are specific to the study of Jesus within the context of early Christianity and ancient Judaism.

- ChatGPT 3.5 at openai.com

 

[Rival]

- ChatGPT 3.5 at openai.com

The Jesus Seminar should not be on there. They are often quite fringe and very liberal.

 

[Augustus]

- ChatGPT 3.5 at openai.com

Hmmm, nothing there is particularly unique. They are just generic techniques applied to a specific question.

Which do you think are special rules applied to Jesus only?

 

[Niatero]

Hmmm, nothing there is particularly unique. They are just generic techniques applied to a specific question.

Hm, maybe so. I'll do some more reading about source criticism.

 

[Heyo]

Uninteresting when European history is so involved with who He actually was if a person has any curiosity about what He taught and what possible misconceptions may exist that helped shape that history?

For the history of Europe, it isn't important who Jesus really was or what he taught, but what people believed what he was and what he taught.
With what you (think to) know about Jesus, could that explain violent proselytation, the schisms, the crusades, the Vatican, blackmailing of multiple kings, the Spanish inquisition?

 

[Niatero]

For the history of Europe, it isn't important who Jesus really was or what he taught, but what people believed what he was and what he taught.

Okay, I see your point, but it disregards the possibility that the history of the whole world including Europe was at the same time largely influenced in a different direction by the personality and teachings of a real person who taught in and between Galilee and Judea near the end of the second temple period.

 

[Niatero]

Now I'm thinking that there might be enough degrees of freedom in historical Jesus methodology for my story to be considered historical if I wanted it to.

 

[Rival]

Okay, I see your point, but it disregards the possibility that the history of the whole world including Europe was at the same time largely influenced in a different direction by the personality and teachings of a real person who taught in and between Galilee and Judea near the end of the second temple period.

I would suggest you start with reading:

Brain J Capper
John M Hull
John D Crossan
Morton Smith
Ched Myers
E P Sanders
Geza Vermes
Charles F Moule
Charles K Barrett
Steven Fowl
Richard Baukham

And N T Wright's mammoth book series on all this.

These are the guys we studied in my Historical Jesus module at university.

 

[Niatero]

I would suggest you start with reading:

Brain J Capper
John M Hull
John D Crossan
Morton Smith
Ched Myers
E P Sanders
Geza Vermes
Charles F Moule
Charles K Barrett
Steven Fowl
Richard Baukham

And N T Wright's mammoth book series on all this.

These are the guys we studied in my Historical Jesus module at university.

Thanks, but what I'm discussing here is not the stories, but the methodology that is allegedly used to write the stories.

 

[Rival]

Thanks, but what I'm discussing here is not the stories, but the methodology that allegedly validates the stories.

Yes, that's what these guys go into.